Sounds of retreat

The Fort Smith Board of Directors held a 2009 planning retreat Jan. 10 that lasted more than seven hours.

Such meetings are analogous to buying an impressive arrangement of flowers. The flowers are ordered and arranged with the best of intentions. They look pretty, smell nice and warm the heart of the recipient for a short time. The flowers die and are discarded and forgotten. There is nothing to show for the good intentions other than an empty vase and a brief note on the accompanying card.

This essay runs the risk of painting myself into a position of being critical of any effort at organizing progress. To the contrary, the board retreat is a healthy annual exercise and often brings individuals and organizations together who normally don’t have the opportunity to openly discuss matters important to not just Fort Smith, but the greater region. Discussions at the retreat about riverfront development and opportunities for economic development collaboration, for example, offered avenues for potential  progress in 2009.

However, this essay is intended to present a concern — if not a mild frustration — noted by some of the area citizens who attended the retreat: What happens in a few weeks, or few months, when the flowery discussion has wilted? The words on the flip charts reflected a genuine passion for progress, but are they merely the notes on the accompanying card? Where is the plan?

What follows are four basic points of concern/mild frustration:

The priorities were vague.
Board members listed economic development and riverfront development/Marshals Museum as their top priority for the upcoming year. Other priorities were quality of place issues, funding necessary wastewater projects, and reviewing the funding and management of the Fort Smith Convention Center.

But what is the economic development priority? The city of Fort Smith could approach economic development from numerous angles. Which angle(s) will be the priority?

Ditto for riverfront development. And what is a “quality of place” priority? Ask 20 people to define quality of place and you’ll be lucky to collect just 20 answers. A quality of place need espoused by one is perceived as excess by another.

No comprehensive action plan was engaged.
With the exception of a requested report on civic center management changes (due April 15), no plans were engaged to pursue the priorities. The board seemed to discuss one topic, take a break, and then move to another discussion. The best I could gather is that the retreat moderator is to compile all the thoughts and action items written on the numerous flip chart sheets into a report that is then sent to the board. Maybe some plan of action will result from that. Who knows?

There was no review or discussion of priorities set for 2008.
Pursuing a restaurant tax, the future of the Fort Smith Convention Center and altering the one-cent street tax so that some of the proceeds could be used for “quality of place” infrastructure were some of the items discussed at the February 2008 board planning retreat.

It seemed odd that no time at the 2009 retreat was given to review critical issues discussed at the 2008 retreat. And, to the best of my memory, there has been little to no discussion of the 2008 priorities during the weekly city board and study session meetings through the course of 2008.

There appears to be a lack of procedural discipline. Maybe it’s just me expecting too much with respect to consistent focus from the board.

The board had its back to the audience.
OK, this is a bit nitpicky, but it seemed symbolic, if nothing else.

The board, The Mayor Baker and a few city staff sat at a U-shaped table arrangement with the audience to their backs during the recent retreat. This format made it difficult for the audience to keep track of what was said and who was saying what. It would seem the U-shape could have been turned 180-degrees so that the board faced the audience.

It was this nitpicky irony that caused me to chuckle when one board member suggested the city do a better job of communicating with the public. I regret the chuckle, because, upon further reflection, it wasn’t funny.

Please know, Kind Reader, that it is my sincere hope the board of directors meets with great success as it pursues noted priorities. Let’s also hope the board will follow the retreat with more details about the priorities, how they intend to pursue them and how they might better communicate a responsible and accountable plan for civic progress.

The last thing we need is another empty vase.